National
New survey seeks updated data on trans experience
Are cultural changes impacting people’s lives?

Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality Mara Keisling (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Amid increased transgender visibility and pro-trans policy changes at the federal level, a leading transgender advocacy group is seeking to recreate an influential survey to monitor developments in the trans experience.
Four years ago, the questionnaire — titled “Injustice at Every Turn” and jointly organized by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National LGBTQ Task Force — was the most extensive survey ever taken of the transgender community and found widespread anti-trans discrimination.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said her organization is renewing the survey to obtain updated data years later.
“The survey data is used by all activists, almost all journalists, so we wanted everybody to have the most up-to-date data,” Keisling said.
According to NCTE, as of Friday, a total of 12,000 people have committed online to taking the survey — almost double the 6,400 who took the 2011 survey. Keisling said she doesn’t have a goal in mind for the new survey other than an increased number of respondents and outreach to populations such as seniors and people of color. Transgender people can register here to take the survey, which will be online Aug. 19.
“Honestly, we want to see if things are improving,” Keisling said. “It’s been five years. There seems to have been a lot of cultural and policy movement, and we want to see if that’s impacting people’s lives.”
Among the findings of the survey in 2011: Transgender people faced double the rate of unemployment, nine-in-10 say they experienced harassment or discrimination on the job and 19 percent said they were refused housing because of their gender identity.
Many of the questions in the new survey would be the same, but others will be added for more complete data on the trans experience. For example, one question on the 2011 survey found 41 percent of respondents reported attempting suicide and another found one-fifth experienced homelessness at some point in their lives. The updated survey will include follow-up questions on whether these incidents of suicide and homelessness occurred in the past year for more accurate data.
Another new change is redirecting those who complete the survey, which will be anonymous, to a form allowing them share personal stories of anti-trans discrimination. The intent is to add the sense of personal experience for potential use in advocacy work at a later time.
Keisling said the personal story option portion of the survey will add to efforts for advocacy on transgender rights not just on Capitol Hill, but in state capitols and media situations.
“Everybody can opt out of that if they want, but it’s just really important for advocacy to be able to tell real people stories and to be able to find individuals who can come forward and tell their own stories,” Keisling said.
In 2011, the transgender survey was a co-project of NCTE and what is now the National LGBTQ Task Force. This time around, the Task Force has stepped aside to keep the project within NCTE.
Rea Carey, executive director of the Task Force, said in a statement to the Blade her organization is excited about the survey and supporting the launch, but opted to leave it to NCTE.
“Together, the National LGBTQ Task Force and NCTE agreed that NCTE would be the sole producer of the report this year and we look forward to seeing the results,” Carey said. “Like our work together on Injustice at Every Turn, NCTE, the National LGBTQ Task Force, and our movement will be able to use the data to continue to make the case for increased attention to the needs of all transgender people.”
Also contributing to the research team for the survey is Jody Herman, scholar of public policy at the Williams Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. As a consultant to the project, she’s working on survey question design to ensure it’s on par with federal surveys and will help with analysis once data is gathered.
“We’re going to design a public use data set so the data can be made available to other organizations or researchers, academics, so they conduct their own research with the data set, so I’m hoping it’ll fuel another wave of research about transgender people,” Herman said.
One reason for renewing the survey is the lack of information on transgender people in the American population at the federal level. Although the Department of Health & Human Services has included sexual orientation questions in health surveys, questions about gender identity have not been included.
Keisling said most information about groups of people in the United States comes from federal government initiatives, which she called “the gold standard for data,” but she said information is lacking for LGBT people.
“One of the most disappointing things about the federal government currently, and there has been so much progress on LGBT issues in the Obama administration…but still we do not have the federal government data for trans people, or even gay, bi people, or just queer people in general,” Keisling said. “We just don’t have them studying us as they should be yet. We’re going to keep pushing for that, but until then, we’re going to have to be collecting our own data.”
It seems unlikely a transgender-related question will be added to the questionnaire the U.S. Census Bureau distributes every 10 years and anticipated in 2020 because that survey will be reduced to a short form. Instead, transgender advocates are pushing for inclusion in the American Community Survey, the annual survey with more extensive questions.
Keisling said there are dozens of other surveys to which LGBT questions could be added, including many conducted by the Department of Health & Human Services. The best way to look at the issue, Keisling said, is through agencies. Just last week, she said she had a meeting with the Bureau of Justice Statistics within the Justice Department.
“There’s the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there’s the National Center for Health Statistics, there are just so many, and there’s just a very small few now that are beginning to count LGBT people,” Keisling said.
Jamal Brown, a spokesperson for the White House Office of Management & Budget, responded by saying policymakers for years have collected data on LGBT populations, but acknowledged more work remains.
“LGBT people are not uniform, with experiences shaped by a diversity of factors including age, race, gender, socioeconomic background, education, and disability,” the spokesperson said. “And without improved data, there’s no way to adequately describe these differences and what they mean for LGBT Americans.”
But Brown said an interagency review is underway to evaluate federal data gathering for LGBT people and “develop recommendations that will inform federal statistics in the future.” The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs held its first interagency meeting on the issue April 9.
Once the data from the latest transgender survey is obtained, Keisling said she expects it to show where anti-trans discrimination exists and that it will help lead the way to fixing it.
“But we’re also going to disseminate the information to the state LGBT groups, to local HIV service organizations, the federal government probably will use the survey in different ways and the media, which has become such an important public education around trans issues, will be no doubt using the survey,” Keisling said.
Keisling said much like the 2011 questionnaire, she predicts the survey will reveal the problems facing transgender people are compounded when they’re part of racial minority groups because of persistent racism.
For example, the 2011 survey found black transgender people live in a significantly higher rate of poverty. Thirty-four percent reported a household income of less than $10,000 a year. That’s more than twice the rate for transgender people of all races (15 percent), four times the general black population rate (9 percent) and more than eight times the general U.S. population rate (4 percent).
But Keisling said the data from the updated survey will “absolutely” be a tool to help ameliorate those compounded problems going forward.
“When you’re trying to move forward, it’s important to understand where you are and which moves forward are the most urgently needed, and this survey will really help with that,” Keisling said.
National
HRC condemns DoE removal of LGBTQ bullying data from federal survey
Organization cites rise in homophobic, transphobic policies, worse mental health outcomes
The Human Rights Campaign is slamming the White House — and the Department of Education — following their removal of some LGBTQ bullying data from federal data collection.
The Civil Rights Data Collection is a mandated survey of all public school districts that collects figures on a wide variety of statistics about students — including demographics that include race, ethnicity, sex, disability status, and English learner status; course-level enrollment data, such as how many students are enrolled in advanced placement or honors classes; and school climate information, such as rates of bullying, harassment, suspensions, and expulsions.
That data collection has been ongoing since 1968 — nearly six decades — but now has a major change in what questions are being asked, or not asked, that advocates are largely attributing to the Trump-Vance administration’s culture war fight on LGBTQ children in the country.
Changes to the 2025-2026 survey questions — approved by the Office of Budget and Management in July — eliminated a space for schools to report how many students identify as nonbinary, how often those students are victims of harassment and bullying, and whether school districts have policies prohibiting gender identity-based incidents.
K-12 Dive, a publication that focuses its reporting on news related to K-12 education, first published a list of these data collection changes from 2024-2025 to 2025-2026.
These questions, as well as others that included LGBTQ student topics on treatment in schools, were added to the CRDC under the Biden-Harris administration. By including these questions, policymakers hoped this would lead to increased investigations into discrimination complaints, initiate compliance reviews, and provide policy guidance to districts, according to Education Department documents.
The CRDC also eliminated the mention of “gender identity” from the definition of rape and sexual assault. The prior collection of data (before the Trump-Vance administration changed it) defined rape as something that could be done to “all students, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation, or gender identity.” Now, the new data collection questions say, “All students, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation can be victims of rape,” removing “gender identity” from the new definition.
By removing and changing definitions, this could have a real-world impact on some of the school’s most vulnerable students. According to CRDC data from 2021-2022, more than 1,800 school districts reported enrolling one or more nonbinary students.
Additional data also shows that the changes to data collection is harming public school students. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee released a report in April finding that the Trump-Vance administration’s efforts to all but close the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights has left students facing discrimination and harassment throughout the country without the federal recourse they are entitled to under federal law.
The Williams Institute, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, has data indicating the true number of nonbinary and transgender children is much higher — they estimate that for children ages 13 to 17, nearly 724,000 identify as nonbinary or trans.
This is in line with a slew of policies pushed by the Trump-Vance administration since their federal takeover. Within his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This directive attempts to make the federal definition of gender unchangeable, determined by sex assigned at birth alone.
Within his first month of his second term, Trump issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.
He also pushed multiple anti-trans executive orders, including Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” and Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” targeting trans athletes and military members, respectively.
These policies have a real-world impact on trans people.
The Trevor Project, a nonprofit dedicated to crisis and suicide prevention for LGBTQ people under 25, reported that, for the seventh year in a row, LGBTQ youth are at higher risk for suicide as a result of mistreatment and stigmatization.
Trevor Project data showed that nearly 60 percent of LGBTQ young people ages 13-17 said they were bullied in the past year, and that 36 percent of LGBTQ youth seriously considered suicide in the last year. The data shows a bigger discrepancy for trans youth, with that number hovering around 40 percent considering suicide.
HRC President Kelley Robinson issued a statement following the approval of the new data collection questions that leaves LGBTQ students’ bullying statistics under — if not completely unreported.
“If there was even a shadow of a doubt, this latest move by the Trump administration makes it abundantly clear they do not care about the safety of LGBTQ+ students, and trans students in particular,” Robinson said. “These are adults who should be protecting our kids. And instead, they are making sure bullying and harassment are not tracked. If they are not tracked, bullying and harassment cannot be prevented or stopped — which is exactly what the Trump administration wants. Parents deserve to know their kids are safe at school, and every single young person deserves dignity and safety at school. Anything less is plain evil.”
HRC has a “Welcoming Schools” initiative that they say is the “most comprehensive” bias-based bullying prevention program in the nation. The program includes LGBTQ and gender-inclusive resources for schools, help navigating special education and disability resources for LGBTQ-identifying students, and other tools to help schools become more inclusive.
This program has been in effect for nearly two decades and, according to HRC, reaches nearly 750,000 students.
The Washington Blade reached out to both the Department of Education and Office of Management and Budget for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.
Michigan
Progressives score victory as El-Sayed wins Mich. Senate primary
Democratic newcomer will face Rogers in November
Michigan held its primary on Tuesday, allowing the two major political parties to select their nominees to go head-to-head for the state’s U.S. Senate seat.
NBC News called the Democratic race early, giving the victory to physician Abdul El-Sayed over incumbent U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) in an extremely close primary. El-Sayed won 48.5 percent of the primary vote, with Stevens trailing by just one percentage point at 47.5 percent.
Both candidates have campagined on supporting the LGBTQ community through different avenues— for El-Sayed he focused on his past promoting HIV and PrEP funding and research. Stevens focused on her legislative history working to support transgender rights in the state.
This is a major win for progressive Democrats, who have been bearing the brunt of political attacks from President Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and centrist Democrats.
El-Sayed, a former health director in Detroit, ran his campaign largely on making life in the Great Lakes State more affordable amid rising costs. His policies include promoting “Medicare for All,” pushing health policy that targets the regressive efforts of the Trump-Vance administration that rolls back funding for both Women and LGBTQ people, minimizing the growing amount of money in politics, and he was very vocal in his criticism of Stevens for supporting aid to Israel. He was endorsed by two major progressives — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Stevens, the four-term congresswoman, is much closer to establishment Democrats on policy than El-Sayed.
During her time in the federal government, she has consistently supported the Equality Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She has also emphasized supporting local manufacturing and lowering housing costs in the state.
She was named to Advocates for Trans Equality’s 118th Congressional Champions list for her pro-trans policies and was endorsed by establishment heavy hitters Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
The contentious race boiled down not only to Michigan affairs but also extended to international conflicts — namely Palestine. (South Africa has filed a case in the International Court of Justice in The Hague that accuses Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip after Oct. 7.) This primary also acted as one of the first major races that pushed back against AIPAC, a lobbying group that works to promote pro-Israel candidates in U.S. elections. The group has been involved in domestic politics since 1954.
AIPAC devoted a massive amount of money to this race.
The Associated Press reported that the pro-Israel lobbying group spent more than $30 million on ads against El-Sayed because of his vocal denunciation of Israel and his continued criticism of its policies towards Palestine.
Michigan has a large Muslim and Arab American population, which could, in part, explain how El-Sayed was able to win.
The Republican side was far less competitive. Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) ran unopposed and clinched the GOP nomination. He has consistently held anti-LGBTQ positions, going as far as voting multiple times for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, voting against repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and supporting efforts to directly target the attempted expansion of Title IX protections to include trans people.
El-Sayed will face off against Rogers in November for Michigan’s Senate seat — one that could have lasting impacts not only on the state’s politics but also on the Republicans’ narrow Senate majority and Trump’s political agenda.
National
White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits
Administration criticizes National Museum of American History
The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.
According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”
Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.
Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.
“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.
The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.
The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.
The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”
The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.
It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”
Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”
On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.
In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.
House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”
In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.
Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.
“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.
Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.
It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.

An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)
